October 3, 2005 by lonbud
All In The Family
George W. Bush is Il Capo di Tutti Capi.
After weeks of speculation, and on the heels of a predictably breezy confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States’ Supreme Court, the President named this morning his former personal consigliere, current White House Counsel Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court seat formerly held by retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Mr. Bush proved, yet again — in his view — loyalty trumps all things.
By offering the unlikely proposition that the person most qualified (among all 297 million of us) to accept a lifetime responsibility — and privilege — to interpret the nation’s laws in our court of last resort is a gal he’s known for umpteen years, the President seeks validation that it is not, in fact, what you do.
It’s who you know.
Ellen Obstler - October 3, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
Lonnie – I don’t know anything more about Miers than anybody. But what we all know is that Harry Reid – the Senate minority leader – called for this nomination, and Miers has supported Gore and democratic causes in the past. Who knows, we could have another Souter on our hands.
Much love,
Ellen
lonbud - October 4, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
Given the spinelessness with which the opposition party in Congress has performed its role these past five years, I’m not too sanguine about Harry Reid being my proxy on Ms. Miers.
This whole thing reeks of the patronage and nepotism by which Mr. Bush has lived his entire life, though I guess it’s too much to expect that he’d all-of-a-sudden do the hard work of finding the country a well-qualified jurist in whom resonable Republicans and reasonable Democrats (not to mention reasonable people unaffiliated with either of the two dominant political parties) could place their trust.
Like so much of what Mr. Bush has done while in the catbird seat, it will be years before anyone will know for certain the extent of the damage for which he’ll ultimately bear responsibility.
Tam O’Tellico - October 6, 2005 @ 5:59 am
It is hard to argue against Miers for the reason that “there is no there there”. Of course, that makes it equally difficult to argue for her. I’ll have more on this later, but for the moment, I’m inclined to agree with — of all people — George Will.
Can This Nomination Be Justified?
By George F. Will
Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23
Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court’s tasks. The president’s “argument” for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’s nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’s name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked — to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked — whether McCain-Feingold’s core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, “I agree.” Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, “I do.”
It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers’s confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent — a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer’s career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.
Under the rubric of “diversity” — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one’s essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal — that one’s nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.
The crowning absurdity of the president’s wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who “legislate from the bench.”
Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, “discriminated against” because of her gender.
Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?
lonbud - October 6, 2005 @ 8:02 am
As it turns out, the lack of there there may just get fleshed out in whatever remains of the public portion of the vetting process. It’s becoming more clear why Mr. Bush chose Ms. Miers, and it has everything to do with her loyalty to the Bush credos of secrecy, cronyism, and abuse of the commonweal.
I chose the mafioso motif because it could hardly be more accurate in describing what is going on and has always gone on under Mr. Bush’s administration of executive privilege.
Paul Burke - October 6, 2005 @ 10:04 am
This is required reading and the reason the tipping point has passed. Keep speaking your truth right and left and middle because our very system of government is at stake and the information highway is spreading the word – read this incredible research and click on beyond Delay at the end, and keep talking and listening and caring about your country – Paul
During a week when Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean tried to rally his party in a quixotic effort to block the confirmation of John Roberts, Republicans at all levels of government may have given him the keys to Congress. For Democrats, ending the epidemic of GOP corruption, patronage and cronyism has to be one sure fire theme for next year’s mid-term elections. Memo to Dean: Clean Up the Mess in ’06.
The Republican rap sheet for the past week alone is staggering. Senate Majority Leader and 2008 GOP presidential hopeful Bill Frist is now in deep trouble for likely insider trading. Only days earlier, the senior Bush administration procurement official at the Office of Management and Budget David Safavian was arrested for lying and obstructing the criminal investigation of Republican mega-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Later in the week, the Bush administration continued revving up its patronage machine even in the post-Michael Brown era, nominating unqualified political hacks and industry stooges for a senior post at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and leading investigations at the FTC.
With their notorious “K Street Project”, Republicans have perfected the Iron Triangle that greases the skids between officials in federal agencies, the congressman and staff that have oversight for them, and the legions of lobbyists who ply them with connections, cash, and careers. It’s long past time for the Republican purveyors of the Triangle of Iron to spend some time behind bars of iron.
The list of Republican miscreants below is by no means complete. But it should provide plenty of ammunition for Democrats running on platform of clean government and ethics reform in Washington, in the states, and on K Street:
In the White House
* Philip Cooney. The former chief of staff for President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality set the modern day record for running the iron triangle. Cooney, who prior to joining the Bush White House was a lawyer (and not a scientist) for the Petroleum Institute, doctored government reports in order to cast doubt on the consensus linkage between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. In just five days in June, Cooney went from revelations to resignation to rehiring by oil industry leader Exxon.
* David Safavian. Safavian, the Bush administration’s top procurement official at the Office of Management and Budget, was arrested for lying to federal agents and obstructing a criminal investigation. The investigation? The inquiry into his mentor and previous employer Jack Abramoff, from whom Safavian (like Tom Delay) accepted golf outings and for whom he arranged a sweetheart land deal for Abramoff’s supposed Hebrew academy. With his other ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, Safavian may have just procured a lot of trouble for some of the leading lights – and low lifes – of the conservative movement.
* Dick Cheney. Following the ethical lapses of Vice President Cheney is only slightly less difficult than following his arteries. Cheney successfully fought off inquiries into the composition of the White House Energy Task force, which produced the bill signed by President Bush authorizing massive tax giveaway to industry cronies. Despite leaving Halliburton prior to becoming Vice President, Cheney continues to draw almost $200,000 a year from Halliburton through a blind trust. Halliburton has been investigated over fraud and mismanagement in the $7 billion of contracts it has received in Iraq. And of course, Halliburton subsidiaries were among the first to gobble up Katrina recovery contracts. Not surprisingly, Army whistleblower Bunnatine Greenhouse was demoted for questioning Halliburton’s no-bid contracts.
* Karl Rove. The misdeeds of “the Architect” are legion, many having to do with Valerie Plame CIA outing scandal. But from the early days of the Bush administration, Rove too was involved in corruption and cronyism. In 2001, Rove met at the White House with Intel executives seeking government approval of a merger, despite his ownership of over $100,000 of Intel stock at the time.
In Congress
* Bill Frist. The good doctor is big trouble over the growing insider trading scandal involving stock of health care giant HCA, stock which supposedly was being held in a blind trust. Despite his repeated public denials, AP reported that Frist has been regularly updated about the status of the HCA stock since 2002. In mid-July, Frist’s trust joined a host of HCA insiders in selling off $112 million of stock just prior to a 15% drop in its value. This is not the first time the Frist family had been in trouble over HCA, which acquired the Columbia company founded by his father. In addition to past fines for Medicare fraud, the family business has also been at the center of a 1997 insider trading inquiry involving Bill’s brother Thomas. As the record clearly shows, Frist lied twice. Terri Schiavo was blind. His blind trust was not.
* Tom Delay. The House Majority leader and man who promised to bring “biblical government” to Washington is facing ethical woes of biblical proportions. Delay and key aides have been indicted for accepting illegal corporate contributions to Delay’s Texas for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee. His “dearest friend”, golf buddy and influence peddler in the Mariana Islands Jack Abramoff has been arrested. And over the years, his wife and daughter have been over $500,000 in campaign funds. No wonder Delay says that he, like Jesus, is being persecuted for his message.
* Bob Ney. The Ohio Congressman is in hot water over his association with golfing partners Abramoff and Safavian. Ney received a lavish trip to Scotland on Abramoff’s private jet, a trip worth over $100,000. Ney also received over $30,000 in contributions from Abramoff casino client, the Tigua tribe. As the American Prospect reported, these favors and perks are just the tip of the iceberg.
In the Federal Bureaucracy
* Michael Brown. “Brownie”, previously fired by the International Arabian Horse Association, resigned in disgrace from FEMA after his performance in the Katrina debacle and his faked resume came to light. Brown’s primary qualification to become FEMA head in the post-9/11 United States was his close relationship with the agency’s previous head, GOP fundraiser and Brown’s own college roommate, Joe Allbaugh. (below). Brown’s primary qualification for staying on the job? Delivering Florida for George W. Bush in 2004, of course.
* Joe Allbaugh. The head of FEMA responsible who recommended his college roommate Michael Brown as his successor at the disaster response agency, Allbaugh brought no relevant qualifications to the Bush administration. None, that is, except a proven track record of as a Republican fundraiser. Even moreso than fake Bush environmental watchdog Philip Cooney, Allbaugh quickly translated his government service into quick cash. His latest win? Katrina recovery contracts for his consulting firm from his past employer, FEMA.
* Julie Myers. Bush nominee Myers found her nomination to head the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) in trouble in the wake of the Michael Brown fiasco. Even Republican Senator Mike Dewine (R-OH) questioned her credentials, which include stints as a federal prosecutor and time at the Commerce Department. Myers, who has no experience running a large bureaucracy, does have experience being the niece of outgoing Joint Chiefs head Richard Myers and being the wife of John Wood, chief of staff for DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff.
* Deborah Majoras. The Federal Trade Commission chairwoman is the FTC’s point person on its gasoline price gauging inquiry in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, in her prior life at the Jones Day law firm she was also the point person for Chevron-Texaco and Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root. In 2004, Senator Ron Wyden opposed her nomination for her refusal to outline the steps she would take to investigate and fight gas price gauging.
In the States
* California Governor Arnold Schwarzegger. The Terminator was forced to terminate his $8 million contract with American Media Inc. signed just days before his inauguration. AMI, which also paid for the silence of Arnold teen paramour Gigi Goyette, was funneling $1.5 million a year to the Governor in exchange for his promotion of the syndicate’s muscle magazines. Not surprisingly, during this time Arnold blocked legislation proposing new regulations for dietary supplements.
* Ohio Governor Bob Taft. The Ohio Governor got caught up in the Ohio “Coingate” scandal, accepting gifts and golfing outings from Thomas Noe (below). Pleading no contest to four misdemeanor ethics violations, Taft showed that even more than his grandfather, he is “Mr. Republican.”
* Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher. In a new low even for Republicans, Governor Fletcher granted a blanket pardon to nine current and former members of his administration who were charged with violations of state personnel laws. The governor of course claims the investigation into his nepotism and patronage in hiring practices, which led the Kentucky Attorney General to search his offices, is politically motivated. Right.
* Tom Noe. A prominent Republican fundraiser in Ohio, Noe was a major contributor for President Bush, Governor Taft and governor-want-to-be Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Noe is also at the center of “Coingate”, a scandal by which Noe received $50 million from the state’s workers compensation fund for investment in rare coins. So rare, in fact, that at least $13 million is unaccounted for.
On K Street
* Jack Abramoff. The crimes of Republican mega lobbyist Abramoff are so numerous as the prevent listing them all here. In addition to paying for trips and golf outings for Tom Delay and David Safavian, Abramoff swindled over $60 million from Indian tribes whose casino interests he represented. (Abramoff was indicted in August.) Together, Abramoff and Safavian could spell a lot of trouble for a lot of Republicans.
* Ralph Reed. The Safavian web also entangles Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition and Bush’s southeastern campaign chairman. Reed was on those golf outings with Safavian and Abramoff. Like Abramoff, Reed also feasted on native Americans to the tune of $1 million in fees for casino lobbying. Interestingly, Reed also worked for Bill Gates in 2000, lobbying then candidate and Reed ally George W. Bush regarding the Department of Justice against Microsoft.
The list goes on and on. The Republicans parasites in the White House, in Congress, in state houses and in the lobbying firms, are turning the United States into a sad parody of the stereotypical South American banana Republic. Better yet, the Bush White House has come to resemble the government of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. Even down to Condi Rice’s shoes.
UPDATE: Several readers have written to highlight more members of President Bush’s ethically-challeged amen corner. The new web site BeyondDelay highlights the 13 most tainted members of Congress, including suspect Democrats. For those following the likes of Duke Cunningham (R-CA), Roy Blount (R-MO), Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Rick Santorum, BeyondDelay has the goods.
Paul Burke - October 6, 2005 @ 10:12 am
Hope over to my blog to get the previous article with the live links – it didn’t take on the previous posting here click on my name or cut and paste the address below – this is informative and deserves digging into – it is what it is
http://journeyhomeburke.blogspot.com/
meredith - October 6, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
We are living in the era where Star Search and The Gong Show have morphed into the first and last word on success in show biz, where a career in show biz and a big neck assure one’s political aspirations. and where, as you put it, Lonnie, it is not what you know…its how easy you are to be manipulated by the invisible powers to be behind the velvet curtain…. another big duh moment for those of us who are still trying to keep the faith…
I was wondering how hard it must be about now to hold on to ones right wing convictions with this embarrasment as the figure head.
Clearly, time to jump ship.
Michael Herdegen - October 6, 2005 @ 7:47 pm
California Governor Arnold Schwarzegger […] blocked legislation proposing new regulations for dietary supplements.
If this is a negative thing, then you must be in favor of letting the FDA and Big Pharma control which vitamins and herbs we can eat, and in what amounts, right ?
lonbud - October 6, 2005 @ 8:10 pm
Is that the best you can do with a seat on the Supreme Court on the line, Michael? Picking out an obscure sidebar comment on the Governator? You disappoint me….
Michael Herdegen - October 6, 2005 @ 11:43 pm
If the issue is the Supreme Court pick, then the entire post about the supposed misdeeds of various peoples OTHER than Harriet Miers is rather beside the point, wouldn’t you say ?
In any case, nothing I say will have the slightest influence on whether she’s confirmed or not, nor whom the President will pick for the next vacancy.
For the record, I believe that she will be confirmed.
Tam O’Tellico - October 7, 2005 @ 7:30 am
Meanwhile, back to Missy Miers,
Behind closed doors, Bush must be laughing his ass off because with Miers he has made a masterful move. He has once again demonstrated the importance of loyalty above all else, and at the same time, he has painted the Democrats into a very unpleasant corner: They must either approve an unqualifed appointment to one of the most important jobs in the world or run the risk that the next appointment will be dragged-up from under a Rabid-Right rock. And gullible old lightweight Harry Reid has fallen right into the snare.
Once again, brilliant politics; horrible governance. Methinks I detect the odor of PavRovian intrigue once again.
Now I’m not saying Miers won’t make a great judge — who knows? I’m merely saying that given her background, she is not qualified for the job for which she was chosen — just like her boss. But my suspicion is that if she truly believes Bush “is the most brilliant man she’s ever met”, she may prove to be incompetent as well as unqualified.
Yes, I know Rehnquist was no jurist before his tenure on the Supreme Court, but I don’t see anyone on either side arguing that Miers is another Rehnquist.
For a real parallel, we need to go back a bit further — ironically, to our last War-Chief-Who-Never-Fought-A-Battle, Dick Nixon. As a political payoff, Nixon nominated party hack, G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Unlike Miers, Carswell at least had some experience as a judge, though his incompetence was pretty much universally acknowledged even by Roman Hruska, a Republican senator, from Nebraska, who rose to the defense of this indefensible choice with the only words he will ever be remembered for:
“Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”
(Now we know where W learned public speaking and public policy. Ah, to be alive now and be a witness to history and the days when mediocrity reached all the way to the throne!)
We can all rejoice that Carswell was not confirmed, but Michael is likely correct that Miers will be. After all, what might follow from this President could be worse than Carswell. I mean isn’t Mike Brown looking for a job?
Paul Burke - October 7, 2005 @ 9:58 am
She looks a bit daft to me – oh well perhaps another wolf in sheep’s clothing what I’m really sick of is that the news is all about her religious conversion from Catholic to Evangelical Baptist or something like that. Hmmm does she walk on water – someone having robust religious convictions no matter what they are shouldn’t be put in a position of power in our secular government. Religion is a personal journey and the temptation with religion is to feel with such deep convictions that your religion alone has all the answers to the mysteries and the mundane, and to inflict your religion (which is just a form of personal philosophy) on everyone – yuck we are a diverse crowd the citizens of this country and religion shouldn’t be a part of the dialogue as if one religion is right and all the others wrong, and you know what that spells – WAR – as it has down through the ages and plays out as gasoline to the fire in the mid east – we need a return to practical, common sense and leave the religion to the individual – not the government – practically, common sense wise how does this nomination stack up – pretty impressive resume – but partners are made in law firms for political reasons too – what does the ABA say about her – those are things we should be looking at – her robust religiosity should be held as a red flag of caution in lieu of our constitution and the separation of church and state – she can have a personal philosophy all the live long day but if she holds that higher than the constitution we are in mac daddy trouble – in regards to the litany of abuses by the republicans – that are listed – yes off “specific blog topic” but certainly alarming and central to the theme of egregious misconduct and poor choices – certainly nothing alleged about any of that. Freedom requires constant vigilance that’s why I plugged it into the current topic, and the list is pretty impressive. Although not household names or as sexy as a blow job and a beret it will all snowball eventually and catch the attention of America. Even with most of American citizens clueless and watching fear factor. It will impact their lives sooner or later. If the Justice Department brings an indictment against Rove and the VP’s office – wow the media will have a field day and the volume will go up as excuses and defenses will have to be made and the accusations will become common knowledge. Tom Delay is secretly praying that’s what happens next.
Leland Nichols - October 8, 2005 @ 2:16 am
A VIEW FROM FRANCE
With coffee at hand , I scan the Washington Post and New York Times on-line glancing from time to time out the windows. Outside this ancient stone house atop a hill in South west France all is serene. On the screen of the computer all is chaos. The GOP is in disarray; the Far Right rails against George Bush for nominating a woman whom they fear to be insufficiently conservative. What a glorious morning it is.
Politics we’re told makes strange bedfellows, but in truth bedfellows make for strange politics. For six years the Far Right has snuggled under the covers with George Bush and only now do they discover they were there to warm the sheets not to conceive offspring who would rule the land forever.
For the President, it must be hard to stop the sound in his inner ear; the sound of the lyric of the old song –“What kind of fool am I?” The answer, sir, is that you are a former President, or rather, that you have begun to see yourself as such. “Legacy” is the chain that binds. You have begun to see yourself in the company of President Carter; a man of moral
stature, of international status. And, most of all, not your father.
But the legacy you now seem destined to leave to your country and your party is the long entrenched rule of the political right. In 2008, your party will nominate a man whom they can trust. They will not be fooled by any John McCain or Mit Romney, men who dally with compromise. They will find among them their George McGovern; a REAL conservative who can lead them to righteous defeat. I wish them well.
Tam O’Tellico - October 8, 2005 @ 9:29 am
Leland,
Excellent post, incisive and well-written. You may well be correct about 2008, and this will turn out to be another Goldwater/Rockefeller battle royal. The Republican Party just might choose a succesor to Goldwater who will pursue the Far-Right agenda of reversing seventy years of social progess.
I think the Republicans have gotten smarter since 1964, far less principled (yes, there are Republicans with principles) and far more practical. I believe they learned a lesson about Pyrrhic victories from the Goldwater episode. The learned that it is difficult if not impossible to win the Presidency if your politics are too far right or left.
In fact, it’s possibe Rockefeller’s defeat in may have been more a result of his marital woes than any widespread passion for Goldwater. It’s for certain, Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in the general election forced the Republican Party to make a concerted effort to move to the middle of the political road.
But in any case, what we are witnessing with this administration and its most rabid supporters has very little to do with Goldwater. Goldwater certainly had his faults, but to my knowledge, he never played the race card, and he would have personally throttled anyone in his organization who did.
As I said previously, I don’t believe what we’re seeing is the reappearance of Goldwater Conservatism so much as it is the rebirth of the American Independent Party. The virulent strain of Conservatism bubbling just benath the surface is much more akin to the politics of George Wallace. It is an evil in the tradition of John C. Calhoun, and it could lead to the same catastrophic consequences if America doesn’t wake up, grow up and live up to its promises.
Since George and his friends are so fond of quoting scripture, let me offer the relevant Biblical passage:
“As you have done unto the least of these, even so you have done unto me.”
lonbud - October 8, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
Watch out, there, Leland; anything with a french provenance is immediately discounted this side of the pond as effete, ineffectual appeasement of all that runs counter to American courage, strength, and rightness in the eyes of God.
Having said that, the world would be a better place, perhaps, if more Americans got to spend some time in Southwest France.
Tam: I’m not so sure Leland’s reference to the Republicans finding their own McGovern was necessarily meant to conjure the ghost of Barry Goldwater. Nor am I confident they have so lost the taste for hegemony’s perks as to nominate a transparent fascist so soon as ’08.
I agree the path we’re on George Wallace might have been happy to take, but I suspect both major parties will run in ’08 candidates who are, on the surface of things, and in every way but degree, mirror images of one another. Neither party seems to have the true courage of their stated convictions as to run candidates who present the electorate a clear choice.
Michael Herdegen - October 8, 2005 @ 11:48 pm
Leland Nichols:
President Carter; a man of moral stature, of international status.
Carter has international status, and ONLY international status.
At home in America, he is remembered as an incompetent and failed President. The Democratic Party looks to Clinton as their President Emeritus, and when the GOP needs a prominent Dem for a bipartisan extra-governmental project, such as tsunami or Katrina relief, they also turn to Clinton.
That said, I believe that Carter is a man of good will, with a good heart, and I applaud his PR work for Habitat for Humanity.
It just goes to show that being morally above reproach is not ALL that is necessary to succeed in life.
In 2008, [the GOP] will nominate a man whom they can trust. They will not be fooled by any John McCain or Mit Romney, men who dally with compromise. They will find among them their George McGovern…
Very doubtful.
Leland, who among the GOP do you see as being both McGovern-like, AND that has any chance to be nominated in ’08 ?
The current front-runners are all moderates or only slightly right-wing.
lonbud:
Neither party seems to have the true courage of their stated convictions as to run candidates who present the electorate a clear choice.
Reagan vs. Carter was a clear choice.
Reagan vs. Mondale was a VERY clear choice.
Dole vs. Clinton was a clear choice.
Bush vs. Gore was a clear choice.
Also, let us suppose that a transparent fascist WAS elected President.
While distasteful, let us remember that no American President has strong domestic powers, and so in all likelyhood, the U.S. would survive her as it has other bad Presidents, not much the worse for wear.
It would be FAR more frightening if 300 transparent fascists got elected to Congress. THEN we’d be in for a world of hurt – “The Handmaiden’s Tale”, here we come.
Tam O’Tellico:
“As you have done unto the least of these, even so you have done unto me.”
Since over the past five years the Federal tax rates for the lowest income brackets have been cut by 33%, the child tax credit has been DOUBLED and made permanent, the NCLB Education Act makes it possible for parents to move their children from mostly low-income, failing schools to better schools, and the Federal government now provides up to $ 7,000 grants for low-income people to use as a down-payment on their own homes, what do you see about the Bush admin that’s worse for “the least” than any previous admin ?
lonbud - October 9, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
Michael: I’ll agree with you the Republicans have been pretty clear about their agenda as it’s been embodied in their presidential nominees since Reagan — even though once in office, Reagan and both Bushes actually betrayed many of the conservative priciples for which they purported to stand — and it’s the Democrats who have failed to put up candidates (aside from Carter and Clinton) who offered the electorate a clear choice.
Interesting, isn’t it, that when the choice was clear, both Carter and Clinton were elected by the people.
In the case of Reagan/Carter, the Republicans had to send Poppy Bush to make an eleventh-hour, covert deal with the Iranians to keep them holding the hostages until after the election in order for Reagan to win.
In the case of Bush/Gore, while the choice was in fact clear, it was not perceived to be enough so by those on the left to prevent the Republicans from winning by jury-rigging the state of Florida and the U.S. Supreme Court.
In my view, if the Republicans run someone true to classically conservative values (pro-business, regressive taxation, low social spending, anti-environment, pro-military, anti-consumer, anti-union, dogmatic/theocratic, reactionary/anti-socialist) and the Democrats run someone true to classically Democratic values (progressive taxation, pro-environment, pro-union, consumer-protectionist, equal rights-oriented, secular, humanist) — the Democrat wins every time.
While your assertion that Federal tax rates for the lowest income brackets have been cut by 33% would appear on its face a welcome benificence, the real tax policy of the Federal government under President Bush has been to vastly over-compensate the wealthy while paying lip service — at best — to helping the poor.
NCLB is an underfunded sham of a gesture at pretending to value schools, the teaching profession, and education. I’d like to see credible data on the actual number of children who have been able to move from mostly low-income, failing schools to better schools under this chimeric legislation.
The real fact of the matter is that under the Bush administration, and in the economy created and sustained by its policies, more people in this country are living in poverty, in both real and per capita terms, than ever. Personal and corporate bankruptcies are at all-time highs. The real individual savings rate has turned negative. This is the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs.
You really need to stop toking on the Republican propaganda bong, dude.
Tam O’Tellico - October 10, 2005 @ 6:04 am
Well, since this thread has diverted from a discussion about Helen Miers to another discussion about Presidents, let’s look at the two Presidents who were/are the most openly professing Christians in American history.
Jimmy Carter represented everything America thinks it is — decent, honest, modest, faithful, and God-fearing — a Sunday School teacher who talked the talk and walked the walk. Unfortunately, he got caught up in economic and political events beyond his control and possibly beyond his abilities to deal with. For that sin, he was drummed out of Washington.
George W. Bush represents everything America really is — selfish, devious, indolent, intolerant, boastful, foolhardy, anti-intellectual — a professing Christian who talks the talk when it suits his purpose. Unfortunately, he got caught up in economic and political events beyond his control and certainly beyond his abilities to deal with. For that sin, he was re-elected.
So be it, the people have spoken. We have met the enemy, and they are us.
lonbud - October 10, 2005 @ 9:29 pm
I think it’s kind of interesting that no one really wants to talk about Helen Miers here; it’s indicative of a strain of thought (or lack thereof) coursing through the larger body politic:
When there’s a 900 lb gorilla in the room everyone wants to talk about the bull in the china shop, or more preferably, who the celebrity trainer of the bull is diddling out back of the woodshed, while the china shop’s evil landlord is raising the rent 200% so he can drive the china purveyors out and put a harujuku fashion outlet in the space.
Unless a whole lot of people are willing to start talking seriously about Harriet Miers and what the Supreme Court means to the fabric of this democratic republic, we are all in for a world of hurt.
My feeling is, once again, Mr. Rove has spun a brilliant tactical move: the far right is howling about how it’s been betrayed because Ms. Miers’ medieval credentials aren’t smokingly obvious, and the President is all over the news reassuring everyone how actually, truly, conservative Ms. Miers can be trusted to be.
Harry Reid and the flaccid left are just dying to gain some co-operative cred by approving this nomination as a gesture of good faith, hoping what is actually a lame duck President won’t try and foist anything more obviously draconian on them in his remaining time in office.
Reid and the Senate Dems should be going for the jugular on this. Senior partner, President of the Texas Bar Association, my ass.
Harriet Miers is no more qualified to sit as a justice on the US Supreme Court than is my five year-old son. She may be a fine attorney, a loyal employee, and a devoted mistress (did i say that?), but she is not the most qualified person in America to fill “Lighten Up” Sandy’s vacant seat on the High Court.
Michael Herdegen - October 11, 2005 @ 5:12 am
This is the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs.
You need to update your talking points – that one’s from 2004, and has been superseded by events.
Anyway, I thought that you disliked statistics ?
Also, since I posted the accurate figures (with source) in the “Cry Me A River” thread on your blog, I’m surprised that you would still spout such nonsense.
Again:
According to the National Association of Manufacturers’ 2005 Annual Labor Day Report (PDF), there are a record number of non-farm employees currently at work in America, around 134 million of them, which is a highwater mark for the American economy.
Also, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, total employment is averaging 142 million a month during 2005, including the effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
During the Clinton admin, the best-ever employment levels came in April and December of of 2000, in each case being not quite 136 million people employed.
Those aren’t the average numbers of people employed under Clinton, those are the TWO BEST MONTHS EVER, out of the 96 months that he was in office – and yet ’05’s average employment figures are 6+ million employed people HIGHER than the Clinton admin’s cherry-picked BEST.
Where are these supposed “net job losses” showing up ?
Among the Democratic apparatchick ?
In my view, if the Republicans run someone true to classically conservative values (pro-business, regressive taxation…
Joel Havemann, October 9, 2005, La Times (a reliably liberal paper):
“Bush has said a reconstructed tax code should be simple and progressive — that is, wealthier people should pay higher tax rates than lower income people — [when commissioning] the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.”
(Which is charged with finding a consensus alternative tax code).
…pro-military…
And Dems are anti-military ?!
I don’t think so, bub, except for the maybe 20% of the party that’s nutso-Left, the current national face (but not heart) of the Democratic Party – the Sheehans and anti-Israelites, and their fellow travellers.
…anti-consumer…
Since 100% of American voters are consumers, how does one pull off the trick of being anti-consumer AND popularly elected ?
Further, being pro-consumer doesn’t guarantee a lonbud-approved outcome. Wal~Mart and the Bush admin, (with CAFTA and six other bilateral free trade agreements to his credit), are both pro-consumer, and you hate both.
…and the Democrats run someone true to classically Democratic values (progressive taxation, pro-environment, pro-union, consumer-protectionist, equal rights-oriented…
Again, as we’ve previously established ON YOUR BLOG, the Bush admin has been better for females and racial minorities than ANY previous administration, including all of the Dem ones.
If you disagree, kindly provide the name of the previous President who was better, and why, including specifics.
Also, you forgot to list dogmatic/secular, reactionary/humanist to your list of Dem qualities.
…the Democrat wins every time.
Except that those races HAVE been run, between Reagan/Carter, Reagan/Mondale, and Bush/Gore…
And the Democrat has LOST every time.
Not to mention, what if the last election had been Bush/Dean ?
Can you honestly say that you believe that Dean would have done better than Kerry did ?
It’s true that someone really needs to stop toking on the bong, dude, but it ain’t me.
lonbud - October 11, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
Jeez, are we really on about this one again? The DoL’s BLS data are a crock, Michael.
When an airline mechanic making $42 an hour gets laid off because his job gets outsourced and he has to take 2 part-time jobs paying $12.50 an hour each, he takes a massive pay cut and the DoL records it as a net increase in non-farm payrolls. Bush’s economic policies have been a kick in the teeth to working Americans, and he remains the only President since Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs.
the Bush admin has been better for females and racial minorities than ANY previous administration, including all of the Dem ones. Don’t make me laugh. Bush may have appointed more women and minorities to government positions than any previous President, but his administration’s policies have certainly not benefitted them in any significant ways.
Tam O’Tellico - October 12, 2005 @ 6:56 am
lonbud
You and I appear to have it right — there is so little there there with Harriet Miers that no one can think of anything good or bad to say about her. Would that were the case with her boss.
Newsweek did have a profile on her this week that was somewhat informative. If the piece can be trusted, it appears she is the consummate female political animal (sorry if that offends, but lump it). By that I mean, she is dutiful, loyal, dependable, thorough, fastidious, and wise enough to let men take the credit for her accomplishments.
While these are mostly worthy traits, I don’t believe they are the most essential traits for a Supreme Court judge, though the ability to manuever and manipulate a bunch of egotistical males would be a welcome asset now that Sandra Day O’Connor is gone.
Newsweek also seemed to suggest that Miers has a spine of steel, a dogged determination that is admirable in most people but far less beneficial when it vests itself in someone like her boss. The line between determined and obstinate is difficult but necessary to draw.
Of far more concern to me is Newsweek’s observations about Mier’s faith. To generalize where one probably ought not to generalize, Texas evangelicals do not generally represent the views of mainstream America. And Karl Rove’s wink and a nod that reassured someone as radically Right as James Dobson should hardly be reassuring to a majority of Americans.
But as I said in my previous post, in the end, those on both ends of the spectrum will probably hold their noses and acquiese to a poor choice rather than face a fierce fight over someone even more controversial.
Tam O’Tellico
Michael Herdegen - October 12, 2005 @ 1:40 pm
lonbud:
Of course we’re “on this again”, since you (so far) have failed to provide any fact or logical argument to buttress your opinion that fewer Americans are working under Bush than worked under Clinton.
Simply repeating “the Moon is made of green cheese” doesn’t make it so – it just convinces people that you’re crazy.
In the first place, the BLS doesn’t just track “the number of jobs”, they also track “the number of Americans working”, and so the laid-off airline mechanic would still only account for ONE working American in the Household Survey, regardless of how many jobs she holds.
All of the figures that I’ve provided have come from the Household Survey.
However, the point about losing well-paying jobs is a good one.
But, if that dynamic were widespread, we could expect to see both reduced mean incomes, if people can’t make up their lost income by working two jobs, and increased unemployment, as those taking two jobs displace other, less qualified people.
We are seeing neither.
Also, the BLS tracks the number of people holding two or more jobs, and that number has remained under 10% of the labor force.
The bottom line is that MORE AMERICANS ARE WORKING under Bush than under ANY previous President.
I don’t know why you find that so difficult to accept. It doesn’t mean that Bush is a great President, it just means that the American economy is still growing, as it has under both good and bad Presidents in the past.
Don’t make me laugh. Bush may have appointed more women and minorities to government positions than any previous President, but…
Oh yeah, I forgot, increased participation in the halls of power is always a bad sign for minorities and other oppressed peoples.
…his administration’s policies have certainly not benefitted them in any significant ways.
So are you saying that Bush has hurt the causes of women and minorities, or simply that he hasn’t advanced their agendas – other than by giving them power, of course ?
Perhaps you missed this in my previous post:
The Bush admin has been better for females and racial minorities than ANY previous administration, including all of the Dem ones.
If you disagree, kindly provide the name of the previous President who was better, and why, including specifics.
Once again, all you provide is your opinion, based on… Nothing much, it appears.
lonbud - October 12, 2005 @ 11:16 pm
Michael:
On the job front, Bush’s record is, at best, a push. And that is not just my opinion, it’s a fact: according to your sacred Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the economy added jobs for 28 consecutive months (data through August 2005), the overall employment level remained below its January 2001 level until January 2005. That’s four full years of employment stagnation.
Unemployment, on a seasonally adjusted basis, was 4.2% when Bush took office; in August of 2005 it was 4.9% That’s negative progress on the unemployment front for the “jobs President.”
Moreover, according to the US Census Bureau, in 2004, the percentage of people in this country living in poverty was 12.7%, the highest rate seen since — take a guess — the Reagan and Bush I administrations. The number of people living in in poverty in America has increased every year since this President took office.
Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, a wholesale rollback of government’s regulatory functions, tacit obliviousness to environmental laws and concerns — all these things were supposed to undergird massive growth in the economy and usher in a new golden age for American workers, when, in fact, all they’ve done is enrich Mr. Bush’s friends and supporters, and f*cked the rest of us for generations to come.
Okay, that last bit is my opinion, but the facts on the ground support it in no uncertain terms.
Exactly what has, oh let’s just pick two: Condoleeza Rice done to advance the causes or plights of women or blacks in the past five years? What has Alberto Gonzalez done similarly for latinos?
Bush has done nothing to advance the agendas of any of those groups. Giving an individual black woman and an indivdual latino male power does nothing for the demographic groups those individuals represent, especially when those individuals — as do Rice and Gonzalez — show no support, leadership, or advocacy for the concerns facing the groups they purportedly represent.
And I don’t have to name you any President who has necessarily been better than Bush on this score, because you were the one touting Mr. Bush as being better for females and racial minorities than ANY previous administration.
It turns out, as a matter of fact, you are wrong.
As a percentage of appointments not requiring Senate confirmation, “[b]lacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton,” and blacks held only 6 percent of “senior executive posts” under Bush, compared to 13 percent under Clinton. Citation here.
So, under your “giving them power” standard of making life better for women and racial minorities, Bush isn’t half the man Clinton was.
Michael Herdegen - October 13, 2005 @ 5:45 am
From the Newsday.com article:
Overall, the Bush administration gave more than half, 54 percent, of its political positions to white men. Clinton awarded 57 percent of his jobs to women and minorities.
So, Clinton apparently appointed 20% more females and minorities to gov’t positions. However:
The snapshot does confirm Bush’s claim that he has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval…
Under Clinton, women held 43 percent and blacks 13 percent of the senior executive posts, and 45 percent went to white men. Under Bush, women won just 24 percent and blacks 6 percent of the jobs, and 66 percent went to white men.
Take, for instance, the Department of Education, headed by Rod Paige, the black former chief of Houston’s public schools, whose appointment Bush often mentions.
Paige’s 18-member top-level team — deputy secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretaries — was quite diverse. A third were minorities and more than half women. Less than a quarter were white men.
David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank on black issues, said, “To some degree, those appointments reflect political reality.”
[During the 2000 election], about 8 percent of blacks and less than a third of Hispanics supported Bush, he said…
The sparse support among blacks and Hispanics means Bush actually has a smaller pool of them to tap into for jobs in his administration.
“It’s not that there are no conservative blacks, it’s that they don’t want to have to defend themselves from attacks by liberal activists”, said Ralph F. Boyd Jr., a black attorney who led the Justice Department’s civil rights unit [until 2003].
Those are among the findings from the first independent review to examine the claims of diversity by Bush and Clinton, based on an analysis of federal personnel records for September 2000 and September 2002.
Basing an analysis of the makeup of political appointees on only two apparently random months is a very small sample, with a high margin of error. Such an analysis should be based on ALL appointments made throughout a President’s tenure, for maximum accuracy.
Still, it does seem as though Clinton WAS better at appointing blacks and women as Assistant Chief Bottle Washers, and Bush has been better at giving them meaningful jobs – two black Secretaries of State in a row, for instance.
While I would prefer the latter strategy, some of the people quoted in the article clearly preferred the “quantity over quality” approach, and so I withdraw any claim that Bush has been THE BEST EVER, and merely assert that he’s been pretty good, as even his critics must agree.
Condoleeza Rice done to advance the causes or plights of women or blacks in the past five years? What has Alberto Gonzalez done similarly for latinos?
What have YOU done for YOUR ethnic/gender group ?
Being competent and a role model is all that is necessary, and all that one can legitimately ask of anyone.
Condi doesn’t need to give a black power salute every time she steps off of Air Force One. Simply being there, and in charge, breaks barriers for future black females, and inspires them to aim high.
[A]ccording to your sacred Bureau of Labor Statistics […] the overall employment level remained below its January 2001 level until January 2005. That’s four full years of employment stagnation.
Are you contending that under President Gore, America wouldn’t have suffered a recession, that Gore has the power to ward off normal business cycles ?
You’ve already made clear your delusional belief that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened under President Gore, so I won’t bring up the it’s effects.
Unemployment, on a seasonally adjusted basis, was 4.2% when Bush took office; in August of 2005 it was 4.9% That’s negative progress on the unemployment front for the “jobs President.”
You’re confusing absolute numbers with a ratio.
The economy has added 6 million jobs since Bush took office; also, 8 million workers.
Thus, we’ve had both job growth AND higher unemployment.
The claim was that Bush has presided over NET JOBS LOSS, a claim which you seem to now recognize to be complete rubbish.
Michael Herdegen - October 13, 2005 @ 6:08 am
BTW, there’s an error here:
[T]he overall employment level remained below its January 2001 level until January 2005.
In January of 2001, there were 136 million people employed, and by November of 2002, there were 136.5 million people employed.
Tam O’Tellico - October 13, 2005 @ 6:56 am
lon and Mike:
While you’re at it, could either of you tell me exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Statistics matter, of course, but they’re sort of like quoting the Bible — one verse negates another.
That’s why these arguments will never be decided by statistics alone. In fact, as we are proving again and again, these arguments decide nothing. The best one can hope for is to render an opinion as best he (or she) can.
But that is not to say that my opinion is strictly a wild-assed guess. My opinions are formed on the basis of a not-quite lifetime of reading, watching and expensive experience. As such, my opinions are not uninformed no mattter how much anyone may disagree with them.
My experience teaches me that if a man has led a life of privlege, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for him to understand the plight of those far less fortunate. As someone far more eloquent than I am put it:
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle.”
What the Good Book seems to be saying is a man who has led a life of privilege and self-indulgence usually doesn’t have much experience when it comes to the real world.
Such a man might truly believe that Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas actually represented the views of ordinary black people. Ditto for Alberto Gonsalez and Latinos — whatever that designation means. It’s as if people are suggesting that Latinos all agree. I hate to have to tell you this, but who don’t know, Cubans generally despise Puerto Ricans, for instance. And can you imagine Clarence Thomas and Al Sharpton agreeing on anything?
Or Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, for that matter? This aspect of the argument is absurd.
But with Bush, we have something that appears to be even worse. We have someone who apparently actually belives his own rhetoric — or at least that of Karl Rove.
Such a man might truly believe John Bolton is just what the United Nations needs. Such a man might put his friend Ken Lay in charge of administering the new Wall-Street Social Security System, just as like he put his buddy Mike Brown in charge of FEMA and wants to put his buddy Helen Miers on the Supreme Court. Well, at least, Ken Lay would have some “experience and expertise” in his assignment.
My experience tells me that Bush is either guilty of massive incompetence in making such choices or else he is guilty of massive cynicism, much like calling a pro-oil and coal bill the Clear Skies Initative or sneaking military recruitment into the No Child Left Behind Act.
So go ahead and indulge yourself with statistics while the New Rome burns down around you — perhaps you to experience it for yiourself. For in the end, a man’s only real authority is his own experience.
Tam O’Tellico - October 13, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
Oops! Sorry, but this is what happens when you write without editing or war without exiting.